Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill Guess]

Say I have invented a sheep harness with which to lower sheep into dip (not the edible variety).

In my pro se, issued patent I claim the harness along with a known lift and a known tank with a known combination of chemicals, as a system.  The above patent is granted and subsequently a manufacturer builds and sells the harness.
Would I have any hope in prevailing by suing the harness manufacturer relative to inducement or contributory infringement?

Thanks in advance toward any comments.

Bill

[Isaac]

Possibly. Your fact pattern does not speak to all of the elements, but see 35 USC 271(b) and (c).

[Bill Guess]

(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.

I'll try and add more:

We have a sheep lift including: cable, crank, crane-like pivoting structure, a tank with chemicals, and a harness releasably attached to the cable.  There is no process claim.

If the harness is suitable for a noninfringing use then contributy infringement would not fly if the "system" claim contained, with the exception of the harness, only well known devices and materials.

Thanks,

Bill

[Isaac]

If the harness is suitable for a noninfringing use then contributy infringement would not fly if the "system" claim contained, with the exception of the harness, only well known devices and materials.

Sounds right and I believe even if the other devices were not well known, the result is the same.

However, in either case, there is still the possibility of infringement under an inducement theory.

[DJoshEsq]

a good example of why to spend money on a patent attorney to draft good claims!

[Bill Guess]

Well I just used the pro se and sheep thing a hypothetical:

You don't want to use the registered practicioner that wrote the following claim, and I doubt the inventor envisioned selling a properly calibrated water meter and housing with his lid opener:

Water meter accessing tool system    7,275,274



1. A water meter accessing system, said system including:

a housing containing a water meter,

a cover being mounted on said housing and being positionable over said housing in a closed configuration covering said water meter,

said cover having an opening extending therethrough,

said opening having a greater length than width;

a pole being elongated and having a first end and second end; a rod being attached to and extending away from said first end of said pole, said rod being orientated parallel to said pole, said rod having a distal end positioned distal with respect to said pole, a plate being attached to said distal end, said plate having a first side, a second side, a pair of lateral edges and a free end, said plate having a thickness smaller than a width of said opening and a width greater than said width of said opening, said first and second sides of said plate comprising a shape having at least 5 sides; and wherein said plate may be extended through said opening to engage said cover and said cover lifted with said pole.


Bill                I've seen a bunch of these and none are  pro se.

[Isaac]

You might want a claim reciting a water meter and a claim without the meter.

[DJoshEsq]

Well I just used the pro se and sheep thing a hypothetical:

You don't want to use the registered practicioner that wrote the following claim, and I doubt the inventor envisioned selling a properly calibrated water meter and housing with his lid opener:

Water meter accessing tool system    7,275,274



1. A water meter accessing system, said system including:

a housing containing a water meter,

a cover being mounted on said housing and being positionable over said housing in a closed configuration covering said water meter,

said cover having an opening extending therethrough,

said opening having a greater length than width;

a pole being elongated and having a first end and second end; a rod being attached to and extending away from said first end of said pole, said rod being orientated parallel to said pole, said rod having a distal end positioned distal with respect to said pole, a plate being attached to said distal end, said plate having a first side, a second side, a pair of lateral edges and a free end, said plate having a thickness smaller than a width of said opening and a width greater than said width of said opening, said first and second sides of said plate comprising a shape having at least 5 sides; and wherein said plate may be extended through said opening to engage said cover and said cover lifted with said pole.


Bill                I've seen a bunch of these and none are  pro se.

Let me rephrase - another reason why to use a "good" patent attorney!

[Bill Guess]

"...another reason why to use a "good" patent attorney!"

Fair enough.

Bill